Poland and pragmatism

The rule of law procedure shows what the EU really is

Source of the photo: newsweek.pl

The academic discipline of International Relations (IR) has always seen the competition of two schools of thought: realism and liberalism-idealism. The theories have survived three waves of clashes so far, but the essence of how their followers see that world remains intact. While realists see humankind as originally sinful and selfish, they don’t expect that much from international relations either. Everything is driven by self-interest. No permanent ties, only permanent interests. That’s the way it is.

Their brave-hearted challengers believe in the good—seeing IR itself as a normative tool to influence decision-makers to make the world a better place. They are convinced that we should never accept things as they are. Instead, we should fight for the ideal of how it should be.

This eternal battle of pragmatic and normative approaches can be clearly seen in the way the European Union handles Poland’s Article 7 disciplinary process. As revealed this week by internal sources, a kind of turf war is fought in the European Commission over the rule of law procedure. While Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and his faithful ally (leader?), Secretary-General Martin Selmayr, are pushing the institution and member states to put an end to the procedure, Vice-President and responsible Commissioner, Frans Timmermans, insist carrying on with the legal agenda that might result in the suspension of Poland’s voting rights in the Council. Juncker has already started to pressure European capitals to find an agreement that will close the dossier.

Reality undoubtedly kicks in, given that the devastating scenario of the so-called nuclear option would never ever happen. Poland’s BFF, Hungary, would always cast a veto, blocking the final decision that requires unanimity. Having this in mind—is it cruel to decide to carry on the procedure just for the pure joy of its normative meaning? Or should the EU instead accept the political reality (another keyword for realist theories) and start saving its face to prevent the escalation of tensions among Member States?

The rule of law issue has been on the EU’s agenda for more than seven years. It has been concluded millions of times that the EU is not prepared to handle if an already accepted Member-State breached the initial accession criteria. Despite the efforts of a few committed decision-makers to set up some kind of firewall against the backsliding in rule of law, this won’t ever happen in the current constitutional setup because the criticized states also have their say.

I am becoming more and more convinced that this whole disciplinary procedure against Poland has nothing to do with the country itself. It illustrates more about the way EU officials and leaders of the Member States perceive the future of the EU, as well as their role in it.

Maybe we should get used to the endlessly realistic thought that the EU has its limits of power. It was originally founded to enhance economic growth after the Second World War. It is only reasonable and successful to expand integration to more policy areas when they ensure the peaceful functioning of the common market. The judiciary independence, the free media, and civil society are only abstract and normative concepts, after all. As long as European firms and intra-EU trade works perfectly, no one should really care about it in Brussels or major European capitals. Maybe it’s time to familiarize ourselves with the idea of another victory for the realist school of thought.